Were those the computers that set in an air conditioned room that required changing the wiring on big circuit boards to program them?

I've read today's laptop computers have more computing power than a room of those relics and are easier to program using the higher level computer languages available now days.

Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?

Good point RJ. Maybe boney is still using his Commodore 64 to try and win the lottery, and thats why he has no luck.

Weren't those the same computers NORAD uses to track alien spacecraft for NASA?

It all makes sense.

Boney IS one of those reptilian chitauri interdimensional aliens that love to drink human blood, (and jimmy might be a hybrid with one of those grey aliens and his role is sidekick or vice versa) or he is from the planet X.

There is no other logical explanation for this illogical stance on the virtues of logic.

These guys are worse than that alien Rush Limbaugh. Its like trying to debate with Judge Judy.

I think the only intention boney and jimmy have is to be so annoying so an arguement ensues whereby then Todd locks this thread.

Were those the computers that set in an air conditioned room that required changing the wiring on big circuit boards to program them?

I've read today's laptop computers have more computing power than a room of those relics and are easier to program using the higher level computer languages available now days.

Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?

RJOh,

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me. Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks. The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date. Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one. You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us.

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me. Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks. The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date. Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one. You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us.

--Jimmy4164

Will the proper study of mankind is books. But some of us are more well read in books.

You guys still have not explained the lotto in terms of the schrodinger equations.

Physical chemists measure these probabilities everyday. No mention of Einstein

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me. Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks. The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date. Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one. You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us.

--Jimmy4164

No one denies the overall theme that you are fixated on Jim. The problem is that reality dictates boney plays ONLY on nights like Nov. 28, 2012 where he could have used my "subset" for 10 times BETTER ODDS

Good point RJ. Maybe boney is still using his Commodore 64 to try and win the lottery, and thats why he has no luck.

Weren't those the same computers NORAD uses to track alien spacecraft for NASA?

It all makes sense.

Boney IS one of those reptilian chitauri interdimensional aliens that love to drink human blood, (and jimmy might be a hybrid with one of those grey aliens and his role is sidekick or vice versa) or he is from the planet X.

There is no other logical explanation for this illogical stance on the virtues of logic.

These guys are worse than that alien Rush Limbaugh. Its like trying to debate with Judge Judy.

I think the only intention boney and jimmy have is to be so annoying so an arguement ensues whereby then Todd locks this thread.

On this specific, individual, particular, lone and singular night I was playing with BETTER ODDS. Can anyone deny the reality of this simple truth without convoluting it into a book chapter from a mad scientist?

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me. Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks. The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date. Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one. You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us.

--Jimmy4164

Discrediting yours or anybody else's remarks isn't part of my agenda and neither is supporting them.

I come to LP to read and consider what other players are doing to improve their odds of winning and occasionally make a comment, not to rehash the logic that some have been preaching for years as good reasons to not play the lotteries.

Lottery players know the odds of winning but that isn't going to change their minds about playing.

Plenty of >if< and >then< in the logic of the members in this thread don't make their ideas less worthy than yours, they just have to find a way to apply their logic to their games and I think that's possible with the computing power of their home computer.

* you don't need more tickets, just the right ticket * * your best chance at winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket * "I will magically reveal the winning numbers after the drawing"

Discrediting yours or anybody else's remarks isn't part of my agenda and neither is supporting them.

I come to LP to read and consider what other players are doing to improve their odds of winning and occasionally make a comment, not to rehash the logic that some have been preaching for years as good reasons to not play the lotteries.

Lottery players know the odds of winning but that isn't going to change their minds about playing.

Plenty of >if< and >then< in the logic of the members in this thread don't make their ideas less worthy than yours, they just have to find a way to apply their logic to their games and I think that's possible with the computing power of their home computer.

RL

Working on my Ph.D. "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not. Most great discoveries come while searching for something else

Read your post above again. I used the construction, Either / Or. I don't KNOW what category you fall into. However, I seem to recall you said you were a former casino worker, which, for me, supports the idea that you are a believer. On the other hand, your posting content, patterns, and your longevity here, might suggest the fee for service alternative.

--Jimmy4164

Nope never worked in a casino, but owned some casino stock. These forums are free though some members claim some of the numbers are theirs. Coin Toss worked in casinos and and several members claim ownership to certain numbers and number combinations.